FirstAlerts

Kingston Man Sentenced for Online Child Solicitation

Nicholas Wadas, 44, of Kingston, was sentenced to nine-to-23 months in prison for criminal attempt to commit unlawful contact with a child.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 1:20 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 27, 2026, 12:31 p.m. ETWritten Aug 27, 2026, 1:22 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 32 min ago

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 27, 2026, 2:08 p.m. ET — checked 32 min ago.

Nicholas Wadas, 44, of West Vaughn Street, Kingston, was to , according to the Times Leader. The sentence was imposed after Wadas pleaded guilty to criminal attempt to commit unlawful contact with a child. The charges stem from an online solicitation case. Further details of the offense were not provided in the report.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 27, 2026, 1:20 p.m. ETFirst report

    Kingston Man Sentenced for Online Child Solicitation

    Nicholas Wadas, 44, of West Vaughn Street, Kingston, was sentenced on August 27, 2026, to nine-to-23 months at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility, according to the Times Leader. The sentence was for criminal attempt to commit unlawful contact with a child.

    The case remains open as it develops.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 127 Aug 2026, 17:20current

    First published.

  2. Version 127 Aug 2026, 17:22current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.